Babatunde Irukera is the director-general/chief executive officer, Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC). In this interview with TOPE SUNDAY, he speaks on the activities of the agency, the progress made so far, as well as other issues.
Why the change of name from CPC to FCCPC?
Well, the change of name occurred because the law changed the name because CPC was a creation of law. It was created through the consumer protection council act of 1992. It was a decree then but it became an act of law. However, the new law which is the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act repealed the Consumer Protection Council Act and it also provided that the previous or defunct Consumer Protection Council would become the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Council. Essentially, it continues in the role of consumer protection but has a new dimension which is competition regulation.
How would you describe the journey so far?
It is interesting sometimes, exciting sometimes, difficult sometimes, but on a whole, it is rewarding.
What are the steps you have taken to ensure that the consumer’s rights abuses are checked?
You know that there are two sides to this. There is the consumer’s side that we have pursued and then the producer’s side we have pursued. The consumer’s side is to pursue aggressive quality and consume education agenda which is advising people on their right and then publicising the agencies and how they can best seek to enforce those rights. In addition, we have a far more robust compliant resolution system than we had before or harvesting complains even on line even on Twitter and all of that so people are more aware of their rights now. People are more aware of their rights and the first step to right enforcement is awareness and we did a major campaign across the country in the hash tag that was “demand and insist making demand on your rights,” “insist they are respected’ and that’s the consumer side. The provider’s side is that we are holding companies more accountable, we have performed a lot of stained and done rate that has put industries more on their toes. We have done on sports bets and we are certainly more vigilant about what is going on in the market and even the things that not that have not been complained about that.
We have held companies accountable to modify their behavior. So, we can see that companies are more responsible and consumers are far more demanding for their rights.
Last year, President Muhammadu Buhari assented to a law promoting consumer fair pricing. Has it become operational and what does it intend to achieve?
I t was actually this year, January 30, 2019, and yes that is the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act. The organisation is evolving and it is transitioning from what it was to what it is now. There are a lot of engagements going on building capacity with respect to the completion aspect of the work. We are already doing a lot of merge review to make sure that companies that already are merging do not disturb the market or lessen the competition. We are certainly enforcing the more robust consumer protection provisions in the law so over all, I will say just because the law was passed had changed the market. Many businesses and people are not law breaking, many comply with the law. So, when you have a law, many people will just comply while you continue to pursue those who fail to comply. We can see that there is a lot of confidence for smaller businesses, and those who want to enter the market. And for the big players in the market, can see that sometimes their concern has untimely melted into restrain and respect for the others.
What is the latest on hike on DStv subscription?
That case is a very misunderstood case. What it was, was that there were bunch of complains against DStv and consumer complains. Some complained whether its prices were excessive or not. But the subject of our investigation in 2017-2018 was primarily to address the consumer protection issues and as we proceeded with the investigation, two parties meaning the agency and the company agreed that there could be a mutual understanding on how to improve consumer’s experience and so that’s why we came up with the mutual joint concept order and that order identified a number of things that DStv will have to do differently. This includes provide 24-hour customer care support, allow people to suspend their services a number of times a year when there will not be home, ensure that consumer get free to air channels even when their subscription expires; modify their compensation policies to make sure that the compensate their consumers for time they lose on account of their poor installation and their system when their system fails, especially when consumer make a payment and they do not start receiving content immediately they made payment. These are things DStv has to do. Also, DStv will have to go under supervision for a limited period of time and for the period when they are under supervision we will look to make sure that they were loading up all those issues that they needed to fix. We decided that the question of pricing because we are in free market is a very sensitive issue should be reserved after all the consumer protection issues have been resolved. Number one complaint about pricing actually sometimes is not question of the number in the pricing standpoint; it is really more of a comparative analysis and value for money proposition whether people are getting good value for what they are paying. So, we thought it would make sense to allow the consumer protection initiative to load up and then see at that point if the people still felt exploited or not. So, we did not seek to address pricing by that investigation. However, what we agreed upon was that DStv or Multi-choice will change any material term of its subscription contract for a period while it was under supervision. The material terms include clauses for installation, liability disclaimer’s content and all of that. But consideration in contract is a material term, which is the price. We both agreed on this. DStv agreed to that to push the draft concept a number of times. So, we had a mutual understanding and we set a date to execute this consent order to be the close of the investigation and the beginning of the supervision.
But did DSTV comply with that agreement?
However, shortly before that date, DStv now sent notices to their clients increasing the prices. Our view of that was not too much as a price issue but it was a bad thing because we have come to an understanding that no material term or condition of the subscription contract will change for a period of time and just before the execution of that agreement, they preempted, trying to playing a fast one on the regulator. That was what the case was about. So, we went to court to say DStv or Multichioce has conducted itself in bad faith and as such reverse whatever decision it has made in bad faith and return to the regulator for oversight. The court ordered that they should essentially reverse their price increase. The DStv interpreted the court order differently and they appealed and because they appealed immediately, their own interpretation of the court order is that once they have appealed, it means that they should maintain status quo and continue with their operation the way they were. We didn’t believe that was the case, we robustly argued against that in the court, but the judiciary process takes time; but that is ongoing now. However, our worry is that the period that the case is pending in court, is it possible to find a way in all the things except the one they are challenging in court, we could still find a way to make sure consumers get those benefits? That is why after carefully researching, and taking additional legal advice from our own lawyers and our team, we decided to still pursue our orders. We saw that there are sufficient legal basis to enter orders against DSTV. Based on the investigations that have occurred in the past, so earlier this year, we entered several orders, about 11 of them, which included some of the things I just told like more robust customers service support, modification of compensation policy, returning to a regime when people can suspend their service, now you can suspend your service three times in a year for a maximum of 14 days each of those times. Then, the customer’s line will now be toll free. They will also be under supervision and compliance has started, we are monitoring them.
Aside from DStv, we also have DisCos, and one of the complaints is the issue of over-estimated billings. What is your agency doing to address this?
The electricity industry is a very complex one. The value chain has many players, and the power problem in Nigeria is a very notorious one. That has been the case for many years, so you see, you must first understand that the solution to the power problem is something that doesn’t emerge, you will arrive at that point but it takes time. But we strongly oppose arbitrariness in billing. I just got back from Lagos, where we held a town hall meeting with customers of Eko Electricity Distribution Company and Ikeja DisCo and I think the solution is aggressive metering. NERC and DisCos have made the commitment to aggressive metering for consumers in the next few months. But, we insist that in the interim there are a few things that needed to be done for the consumers. One, estimated billing is not really the problem only that the bills have become crazy, they are arbitrary. Prior to when the DisCos were sold, there were over-estimated billings. There were many people who were paying their bills and there were people who were not paying their bills. The problem now is that there seems to be no rational basis for some of the bills, people who expect their electricity usage to be to be in the region of N2, 000 to N3000 will see the N20, 000 bill and so if there can be a an estimated billing methodology, which is the case by the rule and they can comply with, so that estimated billings are more representative of the power that consumer are really taking advantage of or the electricity that the consumers consume then consumers will be willing to exercise the patience it takes for the estimated billing to continue to settle bill that DisCos will dispose for them to have completed metering. The second big problem is the group disconnection, when you disconnect people from the pole or transformers irrespective of the people in that neighbourhood who might have paid for their own billings. These were parts of the conversations we had with them and it was very constructive.
Going by the series of the activities your organisation is carrying out, are you not under threat by your power Nigerians?
I know that the agency is not a threat, we are not threatening anyone. But as far as frustrating the work of the agency, I think when we are doing regulatory work, especially consumer protection and enforcement work, resistance is certainly something that you must become familiar with. There is resistance from the company, resistance from other government entities who may a role in that space. There is resistance from even consumers themselves and so we are not unprepared for the resistance. Sometimes, it’s surprising but we understand it, especially, as a regulator, we recognise our mutual role and the clarity of the law. We also recognise that it is in the place of mutual collaboration that we truly and effectively discharge our mutual responsibilities. So, we are engaging other regulators on that.
In July last year, Vice President Yemi Osibanjo launched a patient bill of rights to improve medical services in the country. Almost a year now after it was launched, has the bill achieved its desired objectives?
It has achieved some objectives. Has it met the mark that we intend for it? The answer is no. Call the number of private hospitals that have adopted the ‘Patient Bill of Right’ as their charter. I remember I was actually invited to some to officially launch or commission the charter, to put in public places so that patients can hold them accountable pertaining to that. But in public hospitals we continue to have challenges. We are working on a project with some states now with Lagos leading on how we can make the patient bill of right stronger within the states. Over all, I think people have come to know and there is a lot more to do. We have interpreted it in different languages and we are moving in even in the hinterlands. One thing that I might say is that for the first two years that I was in the council, I think we might receive at least two complaints about the medical facilities or doctors who behaved negligently. But between when the patient bill of rights was launched and now, we have received tens and tens of complaints. What that shows are that, more complaints mean poorer services, but it is not really suggested that. In an environment like ours, more complaints mean that more people are now enforcing their rights more. And so, the Patient Bill of Rights has accomplished something because are now complaining more.
Since you came on board, how many people have been prosecuted or convicted over consumers’ rights abuse?
That is a very interesting question. You know regulatory work is not necessarily mean criminal investigation. It is not every inappropriate conduct that potentially be subjected to prosecution and criminal liability. But some are. I remember last year we interceded for contaminated Rice in Uyo, Akwa Ibom state, actually it on June 22, 2018. I promised that since there is evidence of criminal conduct, we will make sure that the penetrators are prosecuted but it being very difficult because of the people who are very powerful in the society who exploit the institution framework in the society to protect themselves, and protect their inappropriate enterprise. But I am glad to say to you that we fought had and only yesterday (two weeks ago when this interview was conducted), we were able to file the appropriate challenges; we got the Federal High Court to issue a warrant to arrest five defendants and bring them before the court. I was in court myself and I intend to personally prosecute and hopefully secure conviction of these elements who perpetrated this so that they will not continue to continue perpetrating their criminal enterprise. And secondly, other will see reason not to perpetrate the same thing.
The five defendants that you spoke about, what are their offences?
We just got the warrant, they were not in court but we were there. Their offences range from faking products to smuggling products, to offering for consumption food items which know is not consistency with the prevailing standard of SON or NAFDAC. They were bagging rice that was approved by NAFDAC, they did not have NAFDAC registration number. It requires a number of things that criminal connotation.
